Confronting the demonization of AI writing: Reevaluating its role in upholding scientific integrity
Open accessAbstract
The advent of AI-assisted writing tools, such as ChatGPT, has generated significant debate within scientific communities, primarily regarding their influence on the rigor and integrity of academic writing. While critics argue that reliance on these tools could dilute analytical depth or introduce biases, a balanced perspective suggests that AI-driven writing can enhance clarity, structure complex arguments, and improve the efficiency of scientific communication. This manuscript addresses the controversies surrounding AI writing by analyzing historical precedents of methodological errors in published research, highlighting the need for error-minimizing tools during manuscript preparation. Case studies of notable retractions and methodological critiques reveal that inaccuracies in scientific literature are not unique to the era of AI. These issues underscore the need for stringent ethical practices and critical evaluation, regardless of technological advancements. AI writing tools, when employed responsibly, serve as valuable assets to researchers by supporting precision and transparency in scholarly communication. Thus, embracing AI tools, rather than demonizing them, may contribute positively to the goals of reproducibility and trustworthiness in academic publications. Ethical guidelines and a commitment to integrity remain paramount as these tools evolve. • Examines the rising role of AI tools like ChatGPT in scientific writing and addresses associated ethical concerns. • Highlights how AI can enhance clarity, streamline complex information, and support analytical rigor in manuscript preparation. • Reviews historical examples of methodological errors in scientific literature, demonstrating that such issues predate AI tools. • Emphasizes the need for ethical guidelines and critical evaluation to ensure AI writing tools uphold scientific integrity. • Argues for a balanced approach where AI writing tools are integrated responsibly to improve reproducibility and trustworthiness in research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI writing tools can improve the overall coherence of writing by offering suggestions to enhance logical flow and the organization of concepts within the text.
“Beyond correcting grammatical errors, AI writing tools can improve the overall coherence of writing by offering suggestions to enhance logical flow and the organization of concepts within the text [7].”
From The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
1 retracted
Bader, R., Imam, A., Alnees, M., Adler, N., ilia, J., Zugayar, D., Dan, A., & Khalaileh, A. (2024) · Radiology Case Reports · doi:10.1016/j.radcr.2024.02.037 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
RetractedWriting Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321 · Cited by 15,889 · see citing works
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791 · see citing works
Estimation of a Common Effect Parameter from Sparse Follow-Up Data
Greenland, S., & Robins, J. M. (1985) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530643 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.573 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Wakefield, A. J. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)75696-8 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Ashby, D. (1991) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780101015 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Accelerating Editorial Processes in Scientific Journals: Leveraging AI for Rapid Manuscript Review
Fiorillo, L., & Mehta, V. (2024) · Oral Oncology Reports · doi:10.1016/j.oor.2024.100511 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationMeasurement of γrays from cold fusion
Fleischmann, M., Pons, S., Hawkins, M., & HOFFMAN, R. J. (1989) · Nature · doi:10.1038/339667a0 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
The rise of generative AI and enculturating AI writing in postsecondary education
Pedersen, I. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1259407 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Tsai, C., Yeh, Y.-H., Tsai, L.-H., & Chou, E. C. (2023) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins15030199 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep, P. D., & Chen, Y. (2025) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc15090247 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
The Transparency Paradox: Why Researchers Avoid Disclosing AI Assistance in Scientific Writing
BaHammam, A. S. (2025) · Nature and Science of Sleep · doi:10.2147/nss.s568375 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Ans, M., Maggio, L. A., Algodi, H. S., Costello, J. A., Driessen, E. W., Oswald, K., & Lingard, L. (2026) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.5334/pme.2431 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Buitrago, J., Campos, E. M., & Romero, C. L. V. (2025) · Investigación Bibliotecológica Archivonomía Bibliotecología e Información · doi:10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2025.104.59032 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Confabulated references in the age of AI: contamination of the biomedical scientific literature
Fiorillo, L. (2026) · Exploration of Medicine · doi:10.37349/emed.2026.1001385 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationFiorillo, L. (2025) · Journal of Dentistry and Multidisciplinary Sciences · doi:10.3934/jdms.2025001 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationLa inteligencia artificial y la ética en las publicaciones científicas: un desafío emergente
Alvarado, N. J. Z. (2024) · INGENIERÍA INVESTIGA · doi:10.47796/ing.v7i00.1098 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Madsen, D. Ø., & Sohail, S. S. (2025) · Oral Oncology Reports · doi:10.1016/j.oor.2024.100712
Addressing Ethical Issues in Biomedical and Dental Publishing
Fiorillo, L. (2026) · European Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1055/s-0046-1820079
Self-citationThe reluctance to credit AI in academic research: A crisis of transparency or tradition?
Sankar, S. D. (2026) · Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology · doi:10.25259/ijdvl_1974_2025
A “vulnerable” space: Health professions education scholars’ reflections on AI-use disclosurePreprint
Lingard, L. A., Maggio, L. A., Ans, M., & Driessen, E. W. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.10.01.26364502
Enhancing Writer Identity Through Generative AI
Cardullo, V. M., Fitchett, A., & Clemons, C. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8740-6.ch008
- Authors
- Fiorillo, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Messina (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Fiorillo, Luca
- ORCID
- Fiorillo, Luca
- Venue
- Oral Oncology Reports
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 100685
- ISSN
- 2772-9060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4404552428
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Oral Oncology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- AI-assisted writing, ChatGPT, scientific integrity, academic writing, research ethics, methodological errors, retraction, reproducibility, science communication, AI writing tools, manuscript preparation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
